Israelite or Ishmaelite?

[Christian2]

2 Samuel 17:25

25. And Amasa, had Absalom set in place of Joab over the host; and Amasa was the son of a man, whose name was Ithra the Israelite, who came to Abigail the daughter of Nahash the sister of Zeruiah, Joab's mother.

Compare with:

1 Chronicles 2:17

16. And their sisters: Zeruiah and Abigail, and the sons of Zeruiah: Abshai, and Joab, and Asael; three. 17. And Abigail bore Amasa, and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite.

Which is correct? Why the difference? It is the same no matter what Hebrew Scriptures I use.

Thanks.

[Tladatsi]

In Hebrew it is YTR' in Sam 17:25 while it is YTR in 1 Cr 2:17 (Ancient Hebrew was not written with vowels).

YTR' (or YTR, they are basically the same name) is the father of Amasa, the commander of Absalom's army, thus a traitor to King David. The author of Chronicles probably found it embarassing to have the father of the general of Absolom's army be described as an Israelite (YSR'LY) so it was changed to Ishmeelite (YSM'LY). Changing the "resh" to a "mem" is just one or two strokes of the pen.

2 Samuel 17:25

25. And Amasa, had Absalom set in place of Joab over the host; and Amasa was the son of a man, whose name was Ithra the Israelite, who came to Abigail the daughter of Nahash the sister of Zeruiah, Joab's mother.

Compare with:

1 Chronicles 2:17

16. And their sisters: Zeruiah and Abigail, and the sons of Zeruiah: Abshai, and Joab, and Asael; three. 17. And Abigail bore Amasa, and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite.

Which is correct? Why the difference? It is the same no matter what Hebrew Scriptures I use.

Thanks.

[Christian2]

In Hebrew it is YTR' in Sam 17:25 while it is YTR in 1 Cr 2:17 (Ancient Hebrew was not written with vowels).

YTR' (or YTR, they are basically the same name) is the father of Amasa, the commander of Absalom's army, thus a traitor to King David. The author of Chronicles probably found it embarassing to have the father of the general of Absolom's army be described as an Israelite (YSR'LY) so it was changed to Ishmeelite (YSM'LY). Changing the "resh" to a "mem" is just one or two strokes of the pen.

Thanks Tladatsi,

I found this answer to my question:

They are both correct.

According to the traditional interpretation, Yeter/Yitra was an Israelite who lived among the Ishmaelites. Since he lived with the Ishmaelites, he was given the appelation "the Israelite" which stuck with him.

Do you agree with it?

Thanks.

[Tladatsi]

Thanks Tladatsi,

Do you agree with it?

Thanks.

What is it based on? It seems pure conjecture. There is nothing in the text to support such a hypothesis. Even if it were true, it would not explain why in one passage he was called "the Israelite" and in another "the Ishmeelite".

Now of course my own hypothesis (which is what it is) seems just as much conjucture and naturally not at all based on the actual text. I offered it because the author of Chronicles often "cleans-up" stories that he re-told. For example, in 1 Ch 21:1 it is satan who provokes David to conduct a census while in 2 Sam 24 it is stated that God provokes David.

[Conductor42]

For example, in 1 Ch 21:1 it is satan who provokes David to conduct a census while in 2 Sam 24 it is stated that God provokes David.

However, there is no contradiction or problem with the passages there. Anybody can be considered a "Satan" in Hebrew, even God.

[Christian2]

Thank you to all of have taken the time to answer my question. I have what I want.

[yonah_mishael]

In Hebrew it is YTR' in Sam 17:25 while it is YTR in 1 Cr 2:17 (Ancient Hebrew was not written with vowels).

YTR' (or YTR, they are basically the same name) is the father of Amasa, the commander of Absalom's army, thus a traitor to King David. The author of Chronicles probably found it embarassing to have the father of the general of Absolom's army be described as an Israelite (YSR'LY) so it was changed to Ishmeelite (YSM'LY). Changing the "resh" to a "mem" is just one or two strokes of the pen.

I agree with your conclusion: the Chronicler probably figured this guy was a shame and changed his father's name to reflect that and to put him out of the community of Israel. This was often the case with names that ended in Ba'al (בעל) also, since Ba'al was the name of a shameful Canaanite god. So, they would change names ending in this randomly to Boshet (בושת), which means "shame."

JewishEncyclopedia.com

It has been already indicated that the Ba'al plays a great role in Canaanitic proper names. A curious phase in the history of the cult in Israel is shown in the substitution by later editors of (), "boshet," "the shameful thing," for Ba'al in such names as Ishbosheth and Mephibosheth; compare "Eshbaal," I Chron. viii. 33, and "Meribbaal," I Chron. ix. 40 (viii. 34). A name which could not be thus treated was "Bealiah" (I Chron. xii. 6 [A. V. 5]), which means "Jehovah is Ba'al."

© source where applicable

Thus, it would not be odd for the Chronicler to change the name of someone that he thought may have shamed his own father.

The point at which I disagree with you is in that it was only by use of a single pen stroke. There is a good difference between ישראלי and ישמעאלי. Resh and Mem do not even share a pen stroke, so the letter is completely different. Also, the insertion of the Ayin is a big change. It could not have been a mistake of a scribe, but it was deliberate—probably for the reason that you gave (and with which I have agreed) above.

שלום
Yonah

[Tladatsi]

However, there is no contradiction or problem with the passages there. Anybody can be considered a "Satan" in Hebrew, even God.

I did not say it was a contradiction, it was a "clean-up". You are correct, satan (shatan) is a simple noun that just means "opponent" or "contender" in the ordinary sense. However, sometimes "satan" refers to a particular angel of God whose job it is to test the character of humans (Job being the most famous). The satan angel acts as God's "special prosecuter" using powers given him by God. That is what shatan means in Chronicles.

You are correct that the satan angel referenced in Chronicles is only working as an agent of God so there is no contradtion.